I am baffled by the point the OP is trying to make. It is indeed true that it is easy for a landlord to terminate an assured shorthold tenancy and thereby to avoid his obligations to repair the property : the Government says it is sympathetic to changing the law to restrict so-called revenge evictions.

But what does this prove? Surely, if it proves anything it is that the law does not intervene in every situation which we may find morally wrong or personally inconvenient. The law does not protect tenants in the situation he describes; and the law does not protect him in the situation he is in. He may think that it ought not to be so, and maybe he is right (or maybe not) but just because he believes that the law ought to cover his situation, that does not make it so.

I have read somewhere that there are only three universities which are private bodies but my educational institution is not one of them

One of the reasons why most of universities are public bodies is because their students receive public funding but this is not the issue raised in my last post which is whether or not the ‘grounds for judicial review’ are the same as ‘public law duties’.

Well, this is absolutely fascinating. I'm now wondering what the OP was planning to do once he had this elusive qualification. What could it possibly be? Frankly, unless it was for yogic flying, it seems that the college may have considered it their duty to protect the public by preventing a mediocre applicant from going out into the world and practising whatever it is.